On Mon, Aug 31, 2015, at 01:47 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: > Should we hold third-party code to the same warning levels as Mozilla's > home-grown code? When we find warnings in third-party code, we typically > just suppress them because they weren't serious issues and fixing them > upstream is extra work. Sometimes upstream doesn't care or want the > fixes.
This is hard because it means that pulling in an update from upstream can lead to bustage that needs to be fixed. I've hit this when updating Breakpad before and it adds an extra layer of annoyance to an already annoying update process. We can certainly try to upstream warning fixes, but we shouldn't make life harder for ourselves either. > > In other projects I've worked on, such as closed-source commercial > projects or Chromium, third-party code has been "quarantined" in a > top-level vendor directory (called something like "third_party" [1]). > Having third-party code in one directory improves modularity and makes > it easier to audit code licenses and to identify and update outdated > libraries. In contrast, mozilla-central has third-party libraries > sprinkled throughout the tree and each library uses its a different > update process or script. It would be nice to share a common process and > script. I filed a bug[1] a while ago about doing this. I think it'd be great to be able to do `./mach update-thirdparty breakpad <rev>` and have it do the right thing. -Ted 1. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1130343 _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
